This article considers proposed changes to the social services complaints procedure. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 makes provision for complaints Panels to be taken away from local authorities. The suggestion is that in future the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) should be responsible for running all Panels. We argue that this proposal is not grounded in a satisfactory rationale, is not the best solution to any concerns about Panels and could lead to problems for all concerned: complainants, Panel members, complaints officers and the CSCI itself. Keywords: Social services; Complaints Panels; CSCI; Consultation proposals. IntroductionA crucially important policy change, which directly affects local authorities and the provision of social services, was contained in a Department of Health (DoH) The original underlying rationale for including social services complaints in the NHS reform plans was the desirability of making complaints which cross service boundaries between health and social services easier to handle. Thus the initial reason for amending the social services procedure had nothing to do with either the running or success of that procedure. It might therefore be assumed that, as the new NHS reforms do not, in fact, make detailed provision for such complaints, the plans 3 surrounding social services would be abandoned. However, this has not proved to be the case.publication Early objections to the proposalBack in 2001 there was no consultation with local authorities before the changes were proposed in the NHS document. On the proposals being published, objectors, who included complaints officers, Independent Persons and elected members, could not see any clear advantage to the changes. It appeared that the local authority process had been swept up in NHS reforms without sufficient thought being given to the consequences. On the issue of cross-border complaints, the reason for including social services in the first place, objectors argued that better ways of dealing with these could be achieved by other means, including regulations setting a framework for information-sharing and joint investigations.Local authority social services complaints procedures had also been the subject of consultation by the DoH and Listening to People -A Consultation on Improving Social Services Complaints Procedures came to a conclusion in June 2000. However, this document did not contain either a basis for, or a recommendation for, the change now proposed. Objectors therefore argued that there was no evidence, or other firm basis, in the DoH publications or elsewhere that the change would improve local authority handling of complaints. There was certainly no research basis for the change, although the DoH was aware of some very detailed research on the social services Panel process that was then being undertaken (see Ph.D by Katy Ferris, forthcoming) and it was suggested by the objectors that, if changes were to be made, then proper research should inform such changes...

Since 2016, a Refugee Family Reunion Law Clinic has operated from Sheffield Hallam University's Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice (hereafter HKC Law Clinic). Given the austerity-driven political agenda of the UK government in cutting public funding to advisory services, the effects of LASPO and a continuing refugee crisis, refugees in many parts of the UK were in need of legal and non-legal assistance.To fill this gap in services university law clinics, including our own, began to offer specialised services to assist the refugee population. This has included family reunion and exceptional case funding applications, and expert legal advice for individuals who find themselves stateless, yet in many instances the formal assistance ends at this stage.The HKC Law Clinic and its staff have remained in contact with many of our refugee clients (some are now engaged as interpreters). Through this interaction we have observed a particular problem of the lack of post-arrival support for refugees and their families. Developing the Therapeutic Jurisprudence philosophy upon which the clinic is based, and thus ensuring a therapeutically positive experience for the Clinic's users, we have begun a process of creating a more holistic clinical experience. Following the

This paper aims to highlight some of the key issues surrounding the development and application of immigration law as it applies in the United Kingdom (UK) to refugees attempting to be reunited with their families living abroad. The right for refugees to be reunited with their families is enshrined in international law, but this is frequently frustrated by the legal and administrative systems used in the UK. Using content analysis and doctrinal analysis techniques, the paper provides an examination of how a philosophy which considers the emotional effects of the law, therapeutic jurisprudence, could be used not only to inform interpretation of current domestic laws, but also influence the drafting of future legislation. This is an aspect of current refugee law in the United Kingdom which has yet to be examined. It provides, we argue, a humanitarian direction to statutory interpretation which may provide tangible benefits to current and proposed legal systems.

The final chapter in the book examines matters relating to the intellectual property created and/or owned by a business. Given the value of the outputs from the intellectual creativity of persons (software programs, books, music recordings etc.), this chapter outlines the rights available to protect them and the consequences for infringement. It first identifies the law surrounding creative ideas and work (copyright) before a product’s appearance (design rights) is considered. The chapter continues by assessing the protection of a brand name and image (trademarks) and finishes the substantive issues through examination of inventive ideas and works (patents). Confusion of the public through the unlawful use of an existing business’ name or product can result in the tortious liability of ‘passing-off.’ The chapter concludes with an assessment of the intellectual property produced by employees and the consequences of employment status for the rights to exploit the property.

Self-driving cars, also referred to as connected and autonomous vehicles, are not only in vogue among technology and car enthusiasts (among others) but they have been broadly considered to form a new and disruptive means of transport. The benefits of self-driving cars are replete with stories of inclusivity, safety, environmental benefits, and social connectivity. However, the reality of the words ‘self-driving’ and ‘autonomous’ in the designation of this form of transport are not only inadequately defined, they appear to be actively misleading individuals as to the capabilities of the vehicle and the responsibility that they as driver or person behind the wheel have when in use. Tesla is at the forefront of this debate given that it not only sells an option for its vehicles of full self-driving capability, but it also uses terms such as autopilot which, we argue, lead to misunderstandings by the public and may have resulted, directly or indirectly, to fatal car crashes. We conclude this paper with a recommendation that legislative change is enacted through use of an existing international Standard which will provide the definition and guidance that is necessary for the benefit of all stakeholders.